Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’

Contemporary feminism is exactly what you would expect to get if you took a bunch of overeducated, unattractive, power-hungry, man-hating women, gave them their own university department, and told them “all your theories are brilliant, we won’t allow men to criticize you with ‘logic’ and ‘science’ and other patriarchal constructs, and finally, we’ll pay you by the word.”

Remember the Toronto SlutWalk? The first one, before the societal cancer spread to other cities.

This is not what SlutWalkers look like. This is merely a hot Norwegian girl. Why? Because.

Do you recall what set off the sluts? Feminist blogger (and possible slut) i am charli spells out the need for the Sluts’ ill-advised Walk, in the post that introduced me to the slut-tastic phenomenon (here):

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.” … The fact that he said this proves that there is still a mindset about blaming the victim of rape or sexual assault.

Interestingly, according to the exact same feminist blogger, commenting at Unamusement Park (here and here):

Yes — unfortunately dressing sexier does up your chances of getting sexually assaulted.

I don’t think any one would disagree with you that dressing provocatively ups your chances of being raped.

Feminists are illogical and not worth debating.

Read Full Post »

I am reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line from the classic film Commando (1985). As I recall, he was eating breakfast with a very young Alyssa Milano:

Why don’t they just call him Girl George? It would cut down on the confusion.

Wait, that’s not right.

The man is serious about cutting down on confusion.

No, he had just shot Sharon Stone in the head on Mars while trying to reach a telepathic mutant rebel leader to recover memories of a terraforming alien artifact while unwittingly acting out the plans of his evil pre-memory-wipe self:

Consider that a divorce.

Wait, that was the markedly superior Total Recall (1990).

Fans of the film will recognize this as one of former Governor Schwarzenegger's least ridiculous facial expressions.

Now I’ve got it: he was dangling a man over a cliff with the aid of a clearly visible wire.

Remember when I promised to kill you last?

I lied.

Remember when I promised to stop arguing with Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigots?

I lied.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to drop you off a cliff. Yet.

I’m happy — no, that’s not right either. I’m angry to inform you that I am now restarting the destructive side of ‘Park operations. The constructive side, which includes our awesome flyers, will continue as planned; in fact, will probably accelerate, since our operations are powered by burning racial hatred, and arguing with race denialists is an excellent (and renewable) source of fuel.

Why am I doing this? Same reasons I’ve always done it. It’s fun. It’s relaxing. And I want more people to know we’re out there, we who don’t buy into the race-denialist BS. I want our enemies to know it, and I especially want our allies to know it.

Let us begin.

Attraction

Sofia — whose personal motto is not, but probably ought to be, “a lightning bolt of knowledge blowing out the fuse of ignorance in the shitty old house of our liberal dystopia” — has directed me to another great bastion of social-scientific liberal lunacy: Sociological Images. Recently I’ve been having a blast in the comments over there, and I wanted to let you know.

Sofiastry is your source for... I dunno, fingers? Slightly sticky fingers.

A recent article, “Race and the Problems with Measuring Beauty ‘Objectively'” (note the relativist scare quotes) is a predictable attack on evolutionary psychology Satoshi Kanazawa’s research on the inferior attractiveness of Black women. There are two components to this supposed counter-argument. The first is that Black women are only less attractive because of evil White men; specifically,

the global history of slavery, colonialism, and race-based systems of domination that make it impossible to separate out our perceptions of what is beautiful and sexually appealing from historical ideologies that insisted that non-White peoples were unattractive.

… Given that history, it’s not shocking that White women would be rated most attractive and Black women least… the outcome of constant, long-standing cultural messages about attractiveness that resulted from efforts to legitimize and justify social and political inequalities.

In other words — and I’m not going to set up a straw man; this is actually what they’re saying — in other words, you may think you find Black women less attractive than White and Asian women, but you don’t. You actually find them just as attractive. You love their skin tone and their hair texture — can’t get enough of it! However, we’re all the unwitting victims of an historical ideology (that’s a set of ideas about history) that insists that non-White women are unattractive — er, except Asians and Native Americans, who score much higher than Blacks and quite close to Whites. Hispanics too, probably. Somehow we avoided that part of the historical ideology.

It might not be an "historical legacy," but something is definitely turning me on right now.

The author, Gwen Sharp (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Nevada State College), leaves several things unexplained.

  1. Like many conspiracy theorists, she doesn’t explain who, exactly, is transmitting these “constant, long-standing cultural messages” — though it’s not hard to guess — or how they accomplish it.
  2. She doesn’t explain constant, long-standing pro-Black cultural messages, such as the “Black Is Beautiful” movement, which even has its own TV show now.
  3. She doesn’t explain why, when a qualified scientist actually attempts to transmit a cultural message about attractiveness that disfavors Black women (which happens to match the data), he sets off a “firestorm” (Huffington Post), an “international race row,” and “international outrage” (Daily Mail); the article is promptly removed (along with the author’s biography) and an apology issued by the publisher; his institution begins an internal investigation; and fellow academics call for his dismissal in the name of their “multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution” (Daily Mail again).
  4. She doesn’t explain the statistics on interracial marriage.

That last one isn’t really Sharp’s fault. We can hardly expect her to examine the world she inhabits (i.e., the “objective” “facts”) before blaming all our problems on (I can only assume) rich White heterosexual men. She’s not some nerd scientist, for crying out loud — she’s a radical social scientist! And she’s very busy with her extremely important work on — um…

She will soon begin a research project interviewing water diviners, and focus on the way diviners and government hydrologists use scientific/rational language to validate their belief systems while disparaging each other. [Source: Nevada State College.]

Sharp’s theories don’t deserve a rigorous rebuttal. They deserve to be briefly mocked and promptly forgotten. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to erase my memories of the last two days and replace them with a tropical vacation on Mars.

Race

Before that, I should discuss the second component.

[Kanazawa] treats race like a real, biological, meaningful entity. But race is socially constructed; there is no clear biological dividing line that would allow us to put every person on the planet into racial categories [claim #1], since societies differ in the racial categories they recognize [claim #2] and “race” doesn’t map along unique sets of genes [claim #3] — there is more genetic variation among members of a so-called race as there are between members of different races [claim #4].

This is radical pseudoscience, plain and simple, and any college professor who claims to buy into it is willfully ignorant, promoting a radical political agenda, or both. That’s why claim #2, that “societies differ in the racial categories they recognize,” is inane: societies are not made up of experts on race, and even the people society considers “experts on race,” like Gwen Sharp, aren’t experts on race.

It’s also why so many of my comments have disappeared in “moderation,” including my very first: a detailed, documented explanation of why race is biological, which thoroughly debunks claim #3. See sections 2 and 4 of “Black and White,” supplemented with two rebuttals of race denialism: “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2)” and “Debunking race denialism 2: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.”

If you’d rather just read it here, I don’t mind repeating myself. (I know, I know: you’re tired of the same old links. I’ll dig up some new ones just as soon as someone actually argues against the ones I have.)

Let’s start with the basics. Human beings are scientifically divided up into races (and subraces) according to exactly one criterion: ancestral geography. Blacks (comprising more than one race) came from sub-Saharan Africa, Whites came from Europe (basically), Asians (also comprising more than one race) came from… I forget where, and so on.

Anyway, the races evolved in virtual reproductive isolation for tens of thousands of years, except possibly the last few hundred years. Put together four evolutionary forces — founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation — and what do you get? Genetic differences. That’s why you can tell someone’s self-reported race from their genes with 99.86 percent accuracy just from looking at a few hundred genetic markers (American Journal of Human Genetics).

I brought pictures. From Tishkoff et al.’s 2009 paper “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” (Science 324(5930) 1035–1044):

Genetic variation all around the world. See the races there?

From Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994):

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. Clearly, races do not exist.

Claim #4 is simply wrong, as Chuck pointed out in the comments on “Black and White.” From Neven Sesardic’s 2010 “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept” (Biology and Philosophy 25:143–162), citing Witherspoon et al.’s 2007 “Genetic similarities within and between human populations” (Genetics 176: 351–359):

A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: “How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: “Never.”

Any two White (i.e., European) people are always more similar genetically than any White person is to any Black (i.e., sub-Saharan African). Of course, thanks to miscegenation, there now exist people who are 50 percent Black (or White, or Asian…), 90 percent Black, 1 percent Black, and so on. Claim #1 demands a “clear biological dividing line,” but that’s fallacious reasoning that can also be used to “prove” that height doesn’t exist.

Go ahead, draw a clear dividing line (one nanometer thick, say) between short and tall. Try it with slow and fast, big and small, or food and poison. You can’t do it — at least, you can’t do it in a meaningful way. Do you nevertheless learn something useful from statements like the following?

  1. “The robbery suspect is tall.”
  2. “You’re driving too fast.”
  3. “The chances of decapitation are not small.”
  4. “I’ve replaced all the food with poison.”
  5. “Your new high school is full of Black kids.”

It gets worse. Sharp links another article for support, this one by Sociological Images co-author Lisa Wade (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Occidental College), entitled “A Simple Lesson on the Social Construction of Race.” A very simple lesson indeed: the entire article can be summed up as follows.

There are people of all different skin colors. Therefore race doesn’t exist.

That’s it. That’s all. These women have deluded themselves into thinking race is nothing more than the color of your skin. They should look up “Black albinos” sometime. (No, it’s not an oxymoron.) They should consult a forensic anthropologist like George Gill, who can determine the race of a skeleton (PBS Nova). They should ask a geneticist, a medical doctor, and a statistician why an “epidemiologic perspective” (that’s with regard to the spread of disease) “strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity” (Genome Biology). Since they’re so concerned with telling Blacks they’re beautiful, they should also check up on how acknowledging those fictitious “real, biological, meaningful” racial differences can help doctors treat patients. I think fatal cardiac arrest has been conclusively linked to low self-esteem.

Discussion

I mentioned I’ve been having fun in the comments at Sociological Images. In the beginning, I was quite polite and reasonable, but I began to lose patience around the time I posted the following, for reasons which will soon become obvious.

UNAMUSED: For anyone not keeping up with this (rather pathetic and off-topic) debate about race differences in intelligence, or just race differences period: my opponents are unable to cite even one source to back up their opinions about race differences in intelligence. There are also unwilling to read and understand my sources (see above).

Instead, they use insults (“troll,” “white supremacist”), accusations of “racism” (a word which is now meaningless, thanks to people like them), outright lies (like the claim that I haven’t cited my sources), unsubstantiated assertions (everywhere), appeals to emotion, appeals to popularity, and of course their perfect ignorance of intelligence research.

Don’t be fooled.

Please ask yourself: why would two reproductively isolated populations of an animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with
(a) different skin and hair,
(b) different bone structure,
(c) different blood antibodies,
(d) different disease susceptibilities,
(e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses (watch the Olympics), and yet
(f) IDENTICAL BRAINS?

Evolution does not stop at the neck. And science is not concerned with your hurt feelings nor with your “progressive” politics.

A representative response (note the total lack of substance):

JUAN: Tough to decide which is worst and unamusing from you: Your faulty rhetoric or your faulty science. Now, provide some real evidence and cited that isn’t debunked eugenics or pseudo-science.

UNAMUSED: It’s like… it’s like you see the words I’ve written, which are all true, and then your brain just rejects them. Graft versus host, only the graft is REAL SCIENCE.

From that point on, my new comments mostly disappeared into “moderation,” meaning my distinguished opponents’ nasty, ignorant, insubstantial, promptly approved remarks went unchallenged. This displeased me, with predictable results. (I am, after all, the most hateful man on the Internet.) In the end, the thought-crime spree got so out of control, the entire discussion had to be put on hold pending a purge of hate facts, including my first (and least confrontational) comment, which explained why race is biological, not social.

UPDATE 2: The comments section has largely devolved into a flame war with lots of insults flying around, so I’m closing comments since I won’t be around to moderate them [i.e., delete only the ones I don’t agree with] for the next week. I will go in and clean out the comments threads [ditto] when I get a chance.

Therefore I will reproduce some of my exchanges here, before they get deleted.

Statistics

SYD: Plus, what about those of us who ARE significantly and predominantly mixed race? I am half black and half white. I have some distinctly “black” features, and some distinctly “European” ones. Am I “objectively” only half attractive? Or am I just deluded because my black brain-failings have tricked me into thinking I’m any attractive at all?

UNAMUSED: Yes. That’s exactly right. You haven’t misinterpreted at all.

If the average Black woman is less attractive than the average White woman, that means all Black women everywhere are ugly. Thus you are objectively half beautiful, half ugly.

If the average Black person is less intelligent than the average White person (they are), that means all Black people are stupid. Thus you are stupid.

You must have aced Stats 101.

We continued in this vein for some time.

White Supremacy

LETA: I see you like to flaunt your white-supremacy flag. I don’t see you giving intelligence tests to populations that do better than the average white (like Asians).

UNAMUSED: Yes, yes, white supremacy, “sieg heil” and such and such.

Anyway [table-drawing fail]:

group approx. mean IQ
European Jews 110
East Asians 105
Whites 100
Hispanics 90 ya they’re a race
Blacks 85 in America
70 in Africa

The Legend of Colonialism: Ocarina of Hatred

SIMONE LOVELACE: … Even if you could make a real case that certain features common in people of African descent were “objectively” unattractive (spoiler alert: you can’t!), culture bias is clearly a huge factor. …

UNAMUSED: Dark skin is a feature common in people of African descent which is “objectively” unattractive, in that all races prefer lighter skin, in general.

KJ: And might the legendary of colonialism have something to do with that?

UNAMUSED: Explain exactly what the “legacy” (I assume you meant that) of colonialism is, and precisely how it is causing e.g. Black Haitian girls to prefer White Barbie dolls to Black ones.

Or did you think you could just go “colonialism slavery imperialism white people did it lololz,” and everyone would just solemnly nod and go about their business?

MOLLY: Wait, you’re using *Haiti* as an example? … Because it’s not possible colonialism could’ve had ANY impact on Haiti (a nation founded when slaves rebelled against French colonial rule)? …

UNAMUSED: Listen to yourself: you’re claiming that centuries-old colonialism is making modern-day Haitian girls like White Barbie dolls better than Black Barbie dolls.

It’s just… retarded.

Concise

SCOTT: [a whole bunch of crap about the relationship between attraction, sex, reproduction, and evolution]

UNAMUSED: One big straw man argument. No point even addressing this nonsense.

Insecurity

ALIX: People who are insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor always seem to want to demonstrate that some other group is inferior.

I’ve never really been sure why some people are so intent on proving that their group is *superior* to other groups (especially when those groups are more of a continuum than an actual delineated group). Life isn’t a football game. We all benefit if we are all appreciated for our contributions, and our strengths are utilized appropriately. By writing off an entire group, we are ALL weakened.

UNAMUSED: Gee, thank you for that amateur psychoanalysis.

Look, Alix: the reason why I think Blacks are innately less intelligent is because they score lower on intelligence tests, which are not culturally biased; and further research supports a 50–80% genetic explanation. I am not insecure about my own intelligence, and Kanazawa is not insecure about his attractiveness.

I might as well say “you’re only disagreeing with me because you’re agoraphobic.”

The tests are not culturally biased. [You] have no reason to believe they are — I mean, it’s not like you can find any ACTUAL examples of ACTUAL cultural bias on the WAIS. You’re just speculating because you don’t like the findings.

You don’t understand anything about statistics. No one is claiming IQ tests (or better yet g tests) predict your success in life with 100% accuracy (duh). They do, however, predict group outcomes. In particular, they predict Black failure.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am so intent on proving that Whites are cognitively superior to Blacks is that (1) they are, and (2) shrieking harpies like the ones in the thread above can’t seem to grasp that simple fact, and their ignorance and bias are interesting to me.

We should be “writing off” Blacks as a group, because they are innately incapable of achieving the same success as other groups. That means stopping absurd discriminatory policies like AA and racial quotas.

This “writing off” is not discrimination. It has nothing to do with race. (Watch the race denialists fail to grasp this point.) It is a logical consequence of treating everyone as individuals without regard for race. Since Blacks are generally less intelligent, if you treat them like everyone else — as individuals — it’s going to look like discrimination.

PS Asians are cognitively superior to Whites.

Projection

An anonymous commenter succumbs to projection, but replacing “Unamused” by “a race denialist” yields perfection. I swear that wasn’t supposed to rhyme.

ANON: [A race denialist] will always double-down on the crazy, because he truly and solemnly believes in what he’s saying. A failure on his part to continue to believe in the truth of his and his sources claims will mean that he will have to do a full re-analysis of himself, his morals, his world-view, etc. in addition (most likely) to those of his friends and colleagues (and possibly his family and community members). It’s a truly scary thing to admit that something fundamental to how you perceive the world is absolutely wrong.

This is why you can’t reason with conspiracy theorists who believe what they do, and [a race denialist] is just like the conspiracy theorist whose life is consumed with uncovering the government plot that George W. Bush caused 9/11 or the other conspiracy theorist who believes that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.

Arguing with facts won’t help, either, since it’s likely that — like many conspiracy theorists — he’s incapable of understanding where his logic is faulty: conspiracy justification has become an unconscious reaction to dissonant stimuli that affects him at a level more basic than rational thought. Indeed, it hijacks rational thought and leads to rationalizing thought (of the type that either explains away the potential dissonance or builds a wall of denial against it), instead.

In short, he’s a person that doesn’t understand why the majority of people don’t understand the truth that is so clearly in front of them, and no amount of argumentation is going to change his mind about the truth he sees (let alone the intelligence of the people who can’t see it).

Other Highlights

  1. Commenter Bah wonders if I might be Kanazawa himself.
  2. Commenter Alix thinks Sofia and I are the same person. (We’re not… as far as I know.)
  3. No one — no one at all — bothers to address the information I presented. Oh well.

Anyway, I had a blast! Expect more. Now where did I put that memory modifier…

"Stop struggling. You're just making it worse." "Worse than getting my mind erased?" "Well... you're not helping!"

Read Full Post »

The word “racism” is now meaningless in Norwegian as well, reports a reader via email from the land of snipers and black metal. (What do you mean, I don’t have a thorough understanding of Norwegian history and culture?)

Norway!

Below is his translation of an article, “Chaudhry accuses FrP of racism,” from the Aftenposten (“Evening Post”), Norway’s largest newspaper. Note that the “FrP” is Norway’s “Progress Party,” which values individual rights, a free-market economy, small government, restricted immigration, and law and order. Since its inception, the FrP has resided on the political fringe because of its stance on immigration, i.e. its failure to recognize the wonderful, unspecified benefits of filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from. Since 2005, however, as Europe has begun to realize (and pay) the true cost of “diversity,” the FrP has flourished as Norway’s second largest party (currently the most popular among secondary school students).

Member of Parliament Akhtar Chaudhry (Socialist Left Party) accuses the Progress Party of racism after Per-Willy Amundsen said that Muslims have the lowest workforce participation rate.

“This borders on racism,” said Chaudhry to Dagsavisen.

Akhtar Chaudhry is a Pakistani immigrant and 4th Vice President of the Norwegian parliament.

Sniff sniff. "I think I smell some non-Dhimmis around here..."

He is also a whiny little bitch who seeks to undermine Norwegian values (like the separation of Church and State, women’s rights, and not stoning homosexuals) by shutting down debate and suppressing dissent with accusations of discrimination.

Chaudhry is distressed and concerned, and draws parallels to the growth of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. Amundsen’s comment is not in good taste.

Note the appeals to emotion: “distressed and concerned,” “not in good taste” — as if Chaudhry’s (fake) sense of propriety and (fake) distress define the limits of free speech.

“It’s completely borderline. [Note that completely almost racist is still not racist.] If you switch out ‘Muslims’ for ‘Jews’ in the criticism, you understand the importance of what is being said,” says Chaudhry.

He’s absolutely right: if you switch our “Muslims” for “Jews” in the criticism, and see that the result is a false statement, you will understand the importance of addressing Muslim immigration.

He is referring to Amundsen’s comment yesterday that Muslim immigrants have the lowest workforce participation rate. Minister of Labor Hanne Bjurstrøm (Labor Party), and Geir Bekkevold, political immigration speaker for the Christian Democratic Party, distanced themselves from the statement.

Cowards. Traitors.

Hardly in keeping with the proud Norwegian tradition of badassery.

Here’s why Amundsen is right, and also why he’s on Unamusement Park’s List of Cool Norwegians (along with Max Manus, Roald Amundsen (no relation?), all the Vikings, and of course anyone who reads this blog):

Amundsen is standing his ground and insists that he’s not racist.

“I disagree entirely. I am referring to public statistics. It’s clear that the immigrants in Norway with the lowest workforce participation rate are from countries in the Muslim world,” says Amundsen.

Amundsen is backed by the Central Bureau of Statistics. According to CBS, immigrants from Somalia have a workforce participation rate of 31.9 percent. In other words, almost seven of ten Somalians are unemployed. The next lowest countries on the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Kosovo and Iran.

“The eight countries with the worst workforce participation rate are Muslim countries. That speaks for itself,” says Amundsen.

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Here is the actual ending of the article:

He also says that Islam’s view of women is a hindrance to their employment.

Here is my fantasy ending:

He also says: “Suck it, Chaudhry. If you and I had been born 70 years earlier, you’d be telling us how ‘distressed and concerned’ you are that I said Germans have the highest Holocaust participation rate. ‘It’s completely borderline! It’s not in good taste! Waaaaah!'”

At this point, Amundsen made an unprintably obscene gesture in the direction of Chaudhry’s seat in the Parliament Building, sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel and the raw power of a proud Norwegian muskox (bringing tears to this reporter’s eyes, and the eyes of every other true Norwegian within singing distance), performed a vigorous Norwegian folk dance, and declared the interview terminated.

Full disclosure: this reporter is now in love with Mr. Amundsen.

"And then he made us muck out his sheep. His proud Norwegian sheep."

News of Norway

From OzConservative to The Fourth Checkraise to Sofiastry (and also from Jewamongyou to Human Stupidity) to me to you: a video from Norwegian TV.

Norway is known for its news.

Yes, I follow the Norwegian news. Who doesn’t? (Google’s suggestion, based on my browser history: “Showing results for I hate all the Muslims and wish they would just go back to Johnny Arab land as soon as possible. Search instead for news of Norway.”)

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: In Oslo, all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-Western background [meaning non-White]. This was the conclusion of a police report published today.

MALE ANNOUNCER: This means that in every single sexual assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin [meaning non-White].

MALE REPORTER: The young girl we are about to meet was raped about two years ago. As she entered her apartment she was assaulted, and endured hours of threats, violence and rape by a [non-White] man unknown to her. She will be struggling with this experience for the rest of her life.

YOUNG GIRL: I have found it difficult to go out shopping on my own because I felt anxious. I was simply too afraid to go out the door, and had problems contacting and speaking to friends and family, and simply to live a normal life.

MALE REPORTER: In April, a few weeks ago four women were assaulted and raped on the same night [by non-White men]. None of the [non-White] perpetrators has yet been found.

Well, you can start with racial profiling. Call it “community policing” or something. Then round up all the young Muslim men for questioning.

Today Oslo police presented the total figures revealing how in the past year all sexual assault involving rape had been committed by men of non-Western background [meaning non-White].

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Many of the [non-White] perpetrators who commit these rapes on the edge of [White] society, often unemployed [i.e., too lazy to get a job; would rather live off White Norwegians’ tax dollars], arriving from traumatized countries [which, of course, excuses anything they do to their White oppressors — I mean, it’s not like it’s non-White people are the reason non-White countries are so “traumatized” (read: shitty).] In the past five years, it has often been asylum seekers.

“My country is mean to me! Waaaaah! Let me in to yours! I promise I won’t rape anyone! Waaaaah!”

MALE REPORTER: This girl was raped by a [non-White] man of Pakistani heritage. She is an ethnic Norwegian [i.e., White], as are almost all victims who are assaulted and then raped.

That sounds almost like discrimination.

YOUNG GIRL: He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. [“Why?”] Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.

Hey, who are we to judge?

Oh, right: we’re rational, moral human beings, whereas these people are objectively inferior savages. That’s who we are to judge.

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: The way women are viewed [by non-Whites] is at least one of the questions we have to ask in order to understand the motive of the [non-White] perpetrators. …

The motive, incidentally, is sex. It’s just that they’re not decent-enough people to suppress their animal instincts.

… It should not stand on its own, as a stigma [meaning we should never incorporate race and religion into police work, no matter what the cost to real Norwegians], but it is an element we must have the courage to address.

Well, you could start by (a) calling them what they are (Muslims, non-Whites), and (b) not excusing them as “asylum seekers” from “traumatized countries.”

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Here’s what I want you to do, you compassionate reactionaries: bring up this video in conversation. Real live conversation. Not on the Internet. You could wait until someone starts talking about Europe, or the Middle East, or immigration, or women (“speaking of which…”), or just start a conversation about it (“hey, did you know that…”).

"Hey kids, it's time to learn about Norwegian crime statistics!" "Sir, I'm going to have ask you to leave the playground."

After all, it’s just an interesting statistic you heard on the news. You don’t have to “defend” it. It’s not a political philosophy or a policy proposal — but see below.

Suppose you do bring it up, and someone says “so what?” Well, I tried having this conversation with myself, which is

  1. probably a sign of mental illness, and
  2. a good way to practice debating.

The following is a dialogue between a compassionate reactionary (CR) and a stupid, liberal, anti-white bigot (SLAWB), which I ranted to myself in real time, cleaned up, and annotated.

Warning: CR is compassionate, so he emphasizes the positive (crime prevention, women’s rights, preserving one’s culture), but of course he’s also a reactionary, so he probably goes much further than you’re comfortable with (outside the Internet). Consider him an upper bound on acceptable debate.

CR: Hey, so I saw this news report that says every rape in the capital of Norway in the last five years was by a non-White immigrant. Check it out.

SLAWB: So what?

CR: Excuse me? [I usually feign innocence (and confusion) after saying something provocative.]

SLAWB: What’s your point? We should just kick all the immigrants out of Norway?

CR: I didn’t make any suggestions for immigration policy. I just thought you’d like to known, ’cause you’re into, like, women’s rights and stuff. This is pretty much the number one way to identify rapists in Norway: they’re foreigners. Seems like women should be aware of that.

SLAWB: You can’t identify foreigners just by looking at them! How could you tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German?

CR: I wouldn’t be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German. [I try to shut down straw man arguments as quickly and directly as possible. “That’s not what we were talking about.”] If I were interested in avoiding rape, I would be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Turk. Or an Iranian. Or an Egyptian.

SLAWB: In other words, you want us to start using racial profiling to target Muslims!

CR: Oh, you’re saying all the rapists are Muslims? [If you deliberately avoid mentioning the problematic group you’re actually talking about, like Muslims in Europe or Blacks and Hispanics in the USA, it guarantees that your opponent will be the first to bring it up. Then it’s their idea, not yours, and you can just run with it:] Well, I guess that makes sense, considering what countries they come from.

Anyway, is this “racial profiling” anything like “sex profiling,” where you “target” men because they’re so much more likely to commit crime than women? Because that kind of profiling seems pretty reasonable: if one group of people is committing nearly all the crimes, then you should probably pay more attention to that group. Like men (sex profiling), young adults (age profiling), and Muslim immigrants (ethnic profiling). Or do you think we should be just as worried about an 80-year-old Norwegian grandmother committing rape, as we are about a 20-year-old Turkish man?

[Asking questions, even obviously rhetorical questions with only one sane answer, is weak: it gives your opponent the chance to answer you. That is why I never give anyone the chance to answer my rhetorical questions:] I don’t know about your idea of kicking them all out of the country, but maybe we could just deport the illegal immigrants and the ones with criminal records, then stop any new ones from coming in.

SLAWB: Most of those immigrants are poor refugees who just want to escape from injustice and lead a better life, the kind of life you were privileged enough to be born into.

CR: It seems to me that being poor and wanting a better life don’t excuse you from committing sexual assault. I’m no expert on fashion, but I always thought women kept their money in a purse, not in their vaginas. [I actually say stuff like this. Your mileage may vary.]

Anyway, it’s interesting you mentioned that they’re escaping from “injustice” in their home country: a country filled with people just like them. Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same culture. People just like them are committing injustices against them. So they flee. They flee to a nice country like Norway, with nice people and a nice culture. And what’s the first thing they do there? Rape spree.

I mean, if they’re committing about 100% of the rapes, it stands to reason that the rate of sexual assault has gone up, like, infinity percent since they got there. Maybe the reason their home country is so bad is… it’s full of the same kind of people who are fleeing it and coming to Norway. Everyone wants a better life… especially the ones who don’t deserve it.

Based on this news report, it looks like these immigrants aren’t assimilating into the wonderful, privileged society of Norway. They’re not changing. They’re bringing their third-world problems with them. So as more and more of them pile into Norway, Norway is going to look more and more like a third-world country. Meanwhile, Afghanisatan and Pakistan are still going to be third-world countries, so rather than raising up the foreigners to our level, we’re letting them drag us down to theirs.

The Norwegians were leading a “better life” because they weren’t committing all these injustices against one another. Good for them. They’re entitled to keep living their privileged lives the way they’ve always lived them, with each other. They do have that right. Let the Muslim immigrants — especially the poor ones, the ones who get on welfare the moment they arrive, the ones who commit most of the crime — let them stay in their own country, with their own people, and fix it up so it’s as good as Norway. Don’t bring them to Norway, so they can drag it down until it’s as bad as… whatever. Syria, I guess.

SLAWB: [head explodes]

Try it yourself. Write a dialogue, or have a real one.

Imagine yourself as a proud Norwegian muskox, locking horns with an inferior Middle Eastern, er... goat.

For extra credit, re-read this post and identify all the signs of the Dark Triad in my writing. (That’s narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: self-obsessed; deceitful and exploitative; and thrill-seeking and callous.)

Read Full Post »

It’s that time of the month again — no, not that time, the good time: time for Unamusement Park’s three-month anniversary spectacular! Hurray! Or should I say… Unamusement Park’s three-month anniversary slut-tacular. Hurray again! Hurray for sluts!

We like sluts!

You thought I’d forgotten, didn’t you? You silly goose.

I feel the need... the need for sluts.

This is a day I’ll remember forever, like the first time I lied to get sex (“I love you too”), or the first time I took advantage of a drunk girl (“close your eyes, open your mouth, and take off your top — there’s something I want to tell you”).

April is the sluttiest month, and the last nine days of March are pretty slutty too

Tonight we commemorate the founding of Unamusement Park, surely a pivotal moment in women’s history. Bigger than Roe v. Wade. Bigger than suffrage. Bigger than the invention of the push-up bra. Bigger even than the first time a man said: “Hey, you know what would be great? If only there was some way we could oppress all women forever… with our dicks.” So put on some clothes, wipe off your face, and take my hand, as we look back on some of the slut-tastic hate-erosexual experiences we’ve shared and you’ve later regretted, you dirty little girl.

  • As part of the previous anniversary celebration here at Unamusement Park, I dispatched my crack squad of Research Assistants into the field to collect data on a disturbing cultural trend: stupidity levels, already unsustainably high since the late 90s, are still rising.
  • There’s a whole new world of psychology research, a new fantastic point of view on race differences in intelligence. No one can tell us no, or where to go, or say we’re only dreaming. I’m like a shooting star: I’ve come so far, I can’t go back to where I used to be. With respect to behavior genetics, that is.
  • Colorlines: offering solutions to whatever mythical problems today’s minorities are whining about, especially if it’s something white people are doing, like staying in school, getting good grades, not doing drugs, keeping out of jail, or succeeding in life without government handouts.
  • Poor sportsmanship? It’s a reactionary musical extravaganza!
  • One of the peculiarities of our decadent age is the ongoing undeclared War on Hate, which is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. Hatred is a five-part documentary on their struggle. Their stupid, useless, confused, evil struggle.
  • Race denialists really don’t think about race. They will do anything to avoid it.
  • They also display a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. “African blacks don’t have an average IQ of 70,” they crow. “It’s actually 81! That’s only nineteen points (1.3 standard deviations) below the white average!”
  • It’s funny how many people accuse me of being hateful, bigoted, crazy, stupid, or ignorant. Every time they do, I remember the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: “You killed my father. Prepare to die.” Wait, no, that’s not right.
  • Since this is my very first post wholly devoted to the dreadful subject of feminism, I’m going to treat it like spaghetti: throw a bunch of angry sex-conscious women at a wall and see if they stick. No, that’s not quite right. Let’s just say I’m going to strip down my rhetoric, whip out my toolbox of reactionary politics, and shoot my hateful ideas right in their faces. There’s got to be a better metaphor for that…
  • Every time a feminist lies that rape is about power, not sex, and every time she meets useful information with victim-blaming hysteria, she is making the world a little less safe for women. Thanks to feminists, no rape victim will ever forget it wasn’t her fault she was assaulted as she walked home at 3 am, alone, drunk, and wearing her awesome new miniskirt. The man who attacked her was clearly seeking power and control over women. Next week, he’ll probably rape an 80-year-old grandmother at lunch time.
  • You wouldn’t ask a shark to respect your right not to get eaten, would you? Don’t ask rapists to respect your right not to get raped. They don’t care. That’s what makes them rapists. Just stay away from them.
  • You can determine race with 99.86 percent accuracy by looking at gene clusters. You can also determine race by looking at bones. That’s forensic anthropology, or as I like to call it, CSI Serengeti.
  • The truth is, statistically speaking, there is no bias against blacks inherent in the justice system. All the anecdotal evidence in the world won’t change that.
  • “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him” (Jonathan Swift).
  • It’s a genetic epic: an Hispanic panic! Are they ethnic or organic? That third rail (of rape responsibility) was galvanic. (I’m manic.)
  • Human Biological Variationa race denialist favorite, “used in virtually every physical anthropology class for undergraduate students in America” — has the following to say about race differences in intelligence: “There is little debate over the average 15-point difference [in IQ] between American blacks and whites…” Research is hard!
  • Madness? THIS. IS. SFORZA.
  • “Fuck this shit,” I hear you say. “Fuck the war, fuck the economy, fuck global warming, and fuck the price of gas. Fuck the Democrats and fuck the Republicans, but especially the fucking Democrats, and especially the fucking Republicans. Fuck Obama, fuck Biden, fuck Boehner ’til he cries. Fuck the radicals liberally. Fuck the libertarians freely. Fuck the socialists according to your needs, and fuck them again according to their abilities.” Anyway, I came up with this thing. I call it compassionate reactionism.
  • I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately. Not the fact that I’m a frantic schizoid bum — I came to terms with that long ago. No, I mean I’ve been thinking about ways to take these wonderfully hateful ideas off the Internet, out of my fortified bunker complex in Vermont, and into the light of day. Or rather, into the twilight of Western Civilization.
  • This is not what racism looks like: a scientist gives intelligence tests to some people, then announces he’s found a difference in their average IQs. This is what racism looks like: a high-school dropout shoots some beer bottles with an air rifle, then announces “I hate all the niggers, they like to eat watermelon, and I wish they would just go back to Africa sometime very soon.”

Was it good for you? ‘Cause it was fucking spectacular for me.

The first annual Most Retarded Race Denialist award

Unamusement Park would not be possible — actually, it would be possible, but a whole lot less fun for me, if not for the generous contributions of random Internet losers, who have donated their ignorant, inconsistent, idiotic opinions to fuel my white-hot white rage and give me something to make fun of when I can’t think of anything substantial to write. Which is nearly always.

On this day, these men shall be honored for their generosity in the only truly appropriate way: by first insulting, then ignoring them.

Wise words. But this past month, some of those random Internet losers have been so stupefyingly ignorant, so consistently inconsistent, and so unbelievably idiotic that they’ve earned some individual recognition. To that end, I am introducing Unamusement Park’s first award, to be presented annually to the most retarded race denialist: the annual Most Retarded Race Denialist award!

The nominees are: anyone, absolutely anyone, who believes at least one of the following retarded things:

  1. Race is a social construct.
  2. Race is not biological.
  3. Race is only skin deep.
  4. Diversity is a strength.
  5. Black people are just as smart as white people (and Asians).

Without further ado, I proudly present the first annual Most Retarded Race Denialist award to… all of them! They’re all the most retarded! Hurray!

By popular demand: a slutty slut acting slutty!

We turn now to a slutty slut acting slutty, to hear her slutty thoughts on Unamusement Park’s three-month anniversary slut-tacular, or as I like to call it, “International Touch-a-Sleeping-Girl’s-Boobs Day.”

I miss my gratuitous French girl, but she has far too much self-respect to appear in the slut-tacular.

Take it away, you slutty slut.

“Oh my God, I haven’t been fucked in hours. I can’t think straight. I can’t even see straight. Someone, anyone, please stick your cock in me. You!”

Me?

“Yeah, you: the blurry guy with the turnips, wearing the ‘I Hate Black People’ t-shirt. I need you to fuck me. Now.”

… Seriously?

“Do I look like I’m kidding? This is a medical emergency! I. Need. Cock.”

Uh… wow. Hehe, are you at least going to buy me dinner f—

“Shut the fuck up. Take off your pants.”

Hey, what are you — those are my — oh fuck. Guys, stop the tape. Get out of here.

“No, it’s cool. They can stay.”

No, seriously, stop the —

We close on the satisfied moaning and gentle slurping noises of a slutty slut an empowered, sex-positive woman doing what she does best.

“Stop narrating.”

Read Full Post »

“Minorities struggle with racism every single day of their lives,” the sensitivity trainer explains at the start of your mandatory annual Sensitivity Seminar. “You can’t see always it, because it’s so deeply ingrained in our institutions, and your white privilege is blinding you to their suffering. But there’s no denying it: the proof is in the statistics. Minority students are falling behind in school.” Somehow you doubt he’s talking about Asians. “They’re under-represented in science and engineering. They’re being sent to prison instead of college. There’s no other explanation.”

What do you say?

“Homophobes!” Your brother-in-law, the environmentalist lawyer, exclaims over dinner. “They’re just a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist homophobes. Why won’t they give up their hatred and let gay people marry each other, already? Straight people can get married — whatever happened to equal rights? How can they talk about ‘preserving the sanctity of marriage,’ when half of all marriages end in divorce?”

What do you say?

“Why don’t you take an interest in real issues that matter to real people?” Your girlfriend wants to know when you get home. “Did you know that women still make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes? Or was it 80… Anyway, one in four women will get sexually assaulted in her lifetime! Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Do you think it’s okay that cops are telling us we deserve to get raped because of how we dress? Society is afraid of women’s sexuality! Now are you going to drive me to the Slut Walk tomorrow or not? You know I don’t have a car, and I’m afraid to go alone.”

What do you say?

Okay, that last one is easy: “Did you flood my toilet?” Then, without waiting for an answer: “Bring the movies.” (Game: I’m doing it right.)

I was going to upload a picture of my ex, but I decided to just Google "slut" instead. There is an uncanny resemblance here, though.

Constructive criticism

Fellow reactionists (whatever that means), it has been brought to my attention that

  1. it’s impossible to have this conversation in the real world, so nothing I write here at Unamusement Park will ever get any further than your computer screen;
  2. very soon the raging dark masses and government thought-crime enforcers will snuff us out for good; and furthermore
  3. I am a mangled smelly bug-eyed bum.

WILL DEBUNK RACE DENIALISM FOR FOOD

Fair enough. I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately. Not the fact that I’m a frantic schizoid bum — I came to terms with that long ago. No, I mean I’ve been thinking about ways to take these wonderfully hateful ideas off the Internet, out of my fortified bunker complex in Vermont, and into the light of day. Or rather, into the twilight of Western Civilization.

But it’s cozy in my bunker!

Compassionate reactionism: it’s a thing now. I’m not exactly sure what thing it is, but that’s obviously not going to stop me from talking about it at great length.

It’s like ordinary reactionism, only… slightly less hateful. It’s reactionism you can talk about over tea with Grandma.

By my definition, compassionate reactionism comprises all possible honest answers to the question I posed in the introduction — what do you say? — that will not get you fired by your boss, disowned by your family, or dumped by your hypothetical girlfriend. I’m kidding about the girlfriend — you should just let that one go — but I’m semi-serious about the concept, which is the most serious I ever get about anything.

Really, what can you tell your family, your friends, your co-workers? Having none myself, I am in no position to answer. (I was raised by wolves, learned English from reading cereal boxes, and make a living selling turnips I grow behind my bunker.)

Vermont is turnip country.

On Stranger Tides

In my first post on the subject, you’ll find grains of truth, kernels of ideas, mixed nuts of sensible suggestions: it’s nice you’re a feminist, but your ideas about rape are endangering women, for instance, or I understand that you believe you’re a gay woman in a straight man’s body, but you still can’t shower with the “other” girls. That’s the direction we’re heading.

Bear in mind, we’re in uncharted waters here. Already we have sailed into the eye of the feminist storm to battle the man-hating man-eating Kraken that lurks within. We have resisted the Siren song of the sexy sluts, not to mention their incessant wordplay about “getting wet.” We have even waded through the rank, candiru-infested swamps of gender identity. Tomorrow, reactionary rapier in hand, we turn our cannons of compassion on the rowboat of race relations, fearless even in the face of certain death! By which I mean, someone is certain to brand us with the dreaded R-word.

Or should I say, the dreaded arrrrrrrr-word. Hee hee.

Yeah, we got into a whole pirate thing there. Not sure how that happened, but I'm quite pleased it did.

Read Full Post »

Repent.

My opinion of the modern world is best illustrated by these words.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yeats, “The Second Coming”

My opinion of the modern world is second best illustrated by these words.

A man is lying on the street, some punk has chopped off his head,
And I’m the only one who stops to see if he’s dead.
Turns out he’s dead.
That’s why I’m singing:
Oooooo, what is wrong with the world today?
(What’s wrong with the world today?
<mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble>)

Flight of the Conchords, “Issues (Think About It)”

With all these gyres widening, innocence ceremonies drowning, and blood-dimmed tides on the loose, it is easy to become disheartened, bitter, homicidal, or glum.

“Fuck this shit,” I hear you say. “Fuck the war, fuck the economy, fuck global warming, and fuck the price of gas. Fuck the Democrats and fuck the Republicans, but especially the fucking Democrats, and especially the fucking Republicans. Fuck Obama, fuck Biden, fuck Boehner ’til he cries. Fuck the radicals liberally. Fuck the libertarians freely. Fuck the socialists according to your needs, and fuck them again according to their abilities. Fuck the birthers in Hawaii or fuck them in Kenya, it’s all the same to me. Fuck the truthers with an iron-rich sphere. Fuck the relativists and tell them it’s traditional in your country. Fuck the haters, I fucking hate those fucks. Fuck Iraq, fuck Iran; fuck Egypt and Afghanistan. Take a fifteen minute break, then fuck Libya. You know what, fuck every other Middle Eastern shit-hole sand pile, too. Fuck the terrorists. Fuck all the Muslims. Fuck the Arabs and fuck the Jews. Fuck Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer. Fuck the blacks and fuck the Mexicans. Fuck the Asians in the library. Fuck South Africa until they bring back apartheid. Fuck the feminists and make them call you ‘daddy.’ Fuck the Conscious Men, and hey, Dear Woman: Fuck You Too. Fuck the sluts, they’re asking for it. Fuck the betas. (Someone’s got to do it.) Fuck the lesbians straight and fuck the straight girls bi. Fuck the bi girls, they’re crazy in the sack. And while you’re at it, fuck the crazy girls too. Fuck the rapists before they fuck you. Fuck cancer, fuck AIDS, fuck herpes, and fuck swine flu. Fuck the criminals and fuck the police. Fuck mom and dad, they don’t fucking understand you anyway. Fuck Bristol Palin and get her pregnant with another retarded baby. (Or was it Sarah? Ah, fuck it.) Fuck Rebecca Black. Fuck her on Thursday, Thursday. Fuck her again on Friday, Friday. Tomorrow is fucking Saturday, and fucking Sunday comes afterward. You know what? Fuck ’em all. Fuck me, fuck you, fuck the whole entire world. Go fuck yourself.”

I understand your frustration, and I respect your enthusiasm (even as I fear your psychotic babbling). But I am here to tell you: fucking is not the answer! We cannot fuck our way out of this predicament. Our generation’s Berlin Walls will not be brought down by our collective jackhammer thrusting, despite the apparent aptness of the metaphor.

I'm paraphrasing.

Anyway, I came up with this thing. I call it compassionate reactionism. It’s like ordinary reactionism, only… slightly less hateful. It’s reactionism you can talk about over tea with Grandma. Over the next few days, I will attempt to explain the concept by examples. Hey, it’s not like I’ve got three other series going on already…

The Compassionate Reactionary on… Feminism

So you’ve decided women are just as good as men. Maybe better.

No, definitely better.

I happen to agree. Girls are soft and they smell nice. That alone guarantees their superiority. Oh, you meant something different. Equality and shit, right? But you’ve already got that.

Well anyway, I’m happy you’re so strong and empowered and independent and you don’t need a man and your vagina delivers monologues. Why you keep asking for special treatment is a bit of a mystery, but… whatever. We can put that aside for now. I really hope your Ph.D. in Gender Studies is six prime reproductive years well spent. (See how compassionate I am?) However:

Don’t come crying to me when your feminism meets reality, and reality kicks the shit out of you. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. (I feel like we’ve been over this before, albeit in an altogether less compassionate way.)

If you drink and drug yourself into a stupor and wake up in a strange bed with a hangover, a tattoo, a bad case of crabs, and a whole lot of regret, you don’t get to wash away your culpability (or your crabs) by declaring yourself a rape victim. Light all the candles you want. That’s one night you can’t take back.

You say you have a right to not get raped. At first glance, this appears to be a true statement. However, your behavior has lead me to believe you have confused “right to not get raped” with “indestructible barrier protecting your vagina (etc.) at all times and in all places, allowing you to do exactly as you please without any consequences.”

The thing about rapists is: they don't need an invitation.

You say there’s a sexual double standard. I believe you. You’re still a slut, and I still don’t respect you. I’m sorry if I’m not sufficiently empowering you, but you just aren’t relationship material. Now flip over.

No, I don’t have a condom. That’s why we gave you abortion rights, isn’t it?

The Compassionate Reactionary on… Gender

So you’re dissatisfied your genitals. Hey, who isn’t?

But you… you take it further than most. You’ve decided you’re a woman in a man’s body, or a man in a woman’s body, or maybe even a gay man in a straight woman’s body. Something crazy like that. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you were mentally ill.

mental disorder (noun): a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual

Anyway, you’re not happy with how nature identified you, meaning what’s between your legs, so you’re self-identifying as something else. That’s nice. I hope your decision makes you happy. (See how supportive I’m being?) However:

You can’t tell me what you are. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Well, you can tell me, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe you. I’m going to identify you however I like. Probably by how you look. If you don’t like it, don’t talk to me. Definitely don’t try to date me. Because if you look like a guy and talk like a guy but you say you’re a pretty little girl on the inside, well… I’m not going inside to check, if you know what I mean. Maybe your dick self-identifies as pussy, but mine doesn’t buy it.

Natalie Portman: 100 percent irrelevant. If you had just Googled "transgender," you would understand why I need this image right now.

You’ve got your freedom of association, so don’t associate with me — by which I mean, don’t try to fuck me. But I’ve got my freedom of thought and freedom of speech, so don’t try to fuck with me either.

Don’t worry. I’m just getting started.

Read Full Post »

The SlutWalk debate rages on, and everywhere I look, I see the same fundamental fallacy — or, to be blunt, the same fundamental stupidity — from gender feminists. For example, from the Trent Arthur, a front-runner in the Most Biased Reporting competition: “No means no, unless you’re a ‘slut,'” by Hazel Wheeler.

That was the message sent out on January 24, 2011, when the Toronto Police addressed community members at a safety forum at York University’s Osgoode Hall. The comment put forth by one of the officers, that women should “avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized,” has caused outrage throughout the Osgoode community and beyond, and has made national news headlines.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the police officer was actually pointing out that if you don’t dress in a manner designed to make men sexually aroused, it is less likely that you will attract the attention of a man whose arousal is greater than his respect for your rights plus his fear of the possible consequences of raping you (injury, prison, etc.).

I applaud this girl's choice of attire. However, it puts her at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted.

The fundamental stupidity is to misinterpret this as “if you are a slut, then you don’t have any rights, and your assailant should not suffer any consequences.” Where feminists get this idea is a mystery to me. Almost every man they’ve ever met wholeheartedly agrees that women have the rights they keep harping on about, and that rapists should be caught and punished — severely. (We also think they’re crazy for doubting us.)

But you should keep in mind that evil people do exist. You cannot reason with them. You cannot make them empathize. You can only try to avoid them.

Shark rape: As if we didn’t have enough to worry about

Think of them as sharks. You wouldn’t ask a shark to respect your right not to get eaten, would you? Don’t ask rapists to respect your right not to get raped. They don’t care. That’s what makes them rapists. Just stay away from them. Since feminists have proven to be childlike in their reading comprehension skills, I suppose I should emphasize that I wrote “rapists,” not “men in general.”

Dressing modestly probably helps avoid rape. It seems plausible. But it’s your choice. Nobody is trying to take away your right to dress like a slut or act like a slut or call yourself a big ol’ slut. No one has come remotely close to suggesting it. Feminists are all just being hysterical.

There are many myths surrounding sexual assault, one of them being that a woman’s clothing or behaviour may increase her chances of becoming a target.

Madness. Feminists expect us to believe that a woman’s behavior doesn’t increase her chance of becoming a target? So a young woman walking home alone, late at night, drunk, in a poor part of town, is just as likely to be raped as the same woman sitting at home with a couple of friends, at ten in the morning, in a rich neighborhood?

"Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!"

Note: if your first instinct is to say “she could get raped too, here is an example of a woman who did everything right but got raped anyway,” then you don’t know the definition of “chance” or “likely.” Look them up. I’ll wait.

In a few words: she’s asking for it. This line of thinking, where a woman’s rape is at least partly her fault, has generally been widely discredited; the only person who is responsible for an assault is the perpetrator. Period.

Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it — that’s a feminist delusion. They see sexism everywhere.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual line of thinking is: there are things you can do to make yourself safer. Fault and blame don’t enter into this thought. Again, almost every man you have ever met agrees that the perpetrator is responsible. They don’t like rapists any more than you do. They may not shriek about it all the time, but they do have girlfriends and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters and enough brain cells to make the necessary connections. On the other hand, the few exceptions to the male rule will not be convinced otherwise, by you or anyone else. Period.

Wheeler writes: “no one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.” The good news is, no one is. The bad news (for feminism) is, they are equating attracting sexual assault with attracting sexual assault.

Rape is about sex

The implications of these ideas are that men are mindless, sex-crazed animals, and that rape is born from a desire to have sex. If I were a man, I would take serious offense to the former, and to address the latter: rape is not about sex, but rather power and control.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual implication is that men are not one-dimensional beings. There is a great deal of variety among men: in height, weight, intelligence, sex drive, and even moral scruples. Acknowledge this variety and understand which end of which spectrum you need to be worried about, instead of screaming at the opposite end about sluts.

Much more important is acknowledging that rape is about sex. This is perhaps the most obviously true statement we can make about rape. Stephen Pinker, for one, has thoroughly debunked the feminist power-and-control myth in his book The Blank Slate, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Consider date rape, for instance: “Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you."

I will list some more of his (fairly obvious) reasons why rape is about sex, not power or control.

  1. Rapists “rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth.” This is not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “rapists are violent, here is an example of a violent rapist,” then you don’t know what “rarely” means.

  2. Rapists are “overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness.” Also not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “old men commit rape too, here is one old rapist,” then you don’t know what “overwhelmingly” means.

  3. “Victims of rape are mostly in the peak reproductive years for women, between thirteen and thirty-five,” as if we needed to be told, “with a mean in most data sets of twenty-four. Though many rape victims are classified as children (under the age of sixteen), most of these are adolescents, with a median age of fourteen. The age distribution is very different from that of victims of other violent crimes, and is the opposite of what would happen if rape victims were picked for their physical vulnerability [younger or older] or by their likelihood of holding positions of power [older].”

    Note: if your first instinct is to say anything other than “I agree,” then you don’t know the meaning of “mostly,” “most,” “mean,” “median,” “distribution,” or “likelihood.”

  4. Although rape is found in all human societies, “[c]ountries with far more rigid [traditional] gender roles, such as Japan, have far lower rates of rape” than less patriarchal countries, including the United States of America. So much for the evils of patriarchy.

    Again: “rates.” Please consult your dictionary.

Feminist sanity

You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Let’s ask a feminist. An equity feminist, that is: Camille Paglia, to be precise. Twenty years ago she made exactly the same point I did yesterday. (A clear case of time-travel plagiarism — as if shark rape wasn’t bad enough.)

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class. …

These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police — and I — have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”

You stupid idiots, what the hell are you thinking? Why are you doing this?

Why they are doing this, and what they are really doing

From the original article:

SlutWalk is not about hate, nor seeing the offending officer fired, but rather demanding accountability from the Toronto Police Force, since, in [SlutWalk co-founder Heather Jarvis’] view, “they allowed him to go out as a representative, so his actions speak to the lack of training in dealing with rape culture and these sorts of stereotypes.”

SlutWalk is about feminist lies and willful ignorance. It is only making Toronto less safe for women. Congratulations, Heather, you’ve taught the police not to be honest about rape risk factors. (Actually, they already knew that, but you’ve hammered the point home.) They know you will not abide reality, if reality says: “you may do as you please, but I will impose consequences on you.”

There is no cause for alarm. Feminists assure me, walking alone through this park at night cannot possibly increase your chances of being assaulted.

Bring it on home, Heather.

“This is something that people want and need. Yes, there is criticism, and there always will be, but hundreds of people are showing their support for this initiative, and I think that speaks strongly to something that people are sick and tired of and want to do something about.”

Sadly, they’re not doing anything to stop rape or to help rape victims. All they’re doing is suppressing information — information that might actually do some good — in order to advance their slut-positive, sex-worshiping, reality-denying, criminally irresponsible gender feminist ideology.

Read Full Post »

Apparently this SlutWalk phenomenon is much bigger than I initially thought — and much crazier, and much more harmful to women. You can read more in the Excalibur, in the Trent Arthur, at Sexlife Canada, and at thestar.com.

What will you find? Thousands of sluts (their word, not mine) united in condemning a man for saying something undeniably true out of a desire to protect them, and all committing the exact same fallacy: just because you want to be able to behave any way you like without consequences — in or out of your bedroom — doesn’t mean you can. You don’t have to like reality, but you do have to live in it.

Every time a feminist lies that rape is about power, not sex, and every time she meets useful information with victim-blaming hysteria, she is making the world a little less safe for women. This kind of feminism, gender feminism, is undoubtedly doing real harm to women — as opposed to hypothetical harm, like the notion that rape victims will only come forward if no one ever says out loud what we all know to be true; namely, that for any given crime, there is a list of optional behaviors that definitely increase your chances of becoming a victim of that crime.

Don’t worry, though. Thanks to that feminist, no rape victim will ever forget it wasn’t her fault she was assaulted as she walked home at 3 am, alone, drunk, and wearing her awesome new miniskirt. She knew exactly what she was doing. She was armed with the knowledge that rape isn’t about sex, so how could her revealing clothing have anything to do with it? It just doesn’t make sense. The man who attacked her was clearly seeking power and control over women. His only motivation was furthering the goals of the global patriarchal conspiracy (the same conspiracy that mysteriously failed to deny American and Canadian women the right to vote, go to school, etc.). Next week, he’ll probably rape an 80-year-old grandmother at lunch time.

Go ahead, the gender feminists will say. Do the same thing tomorrow night. Or don’t, it makes no difference. Even if you stay home with Granny, you’re just as likely to be the victim of sexual assault. After all, patriarchal control isn’t limited to any particular time of the day, or place in the city, or kind of woman.

And above all else, anyone who disagrees is victim blaming.

If you think you missed some of my sarcasm, please read my previous post and the comments on it, where I lay out my positions on the matters of rape, women’s rights, blame assignation, causal relationships in human behavior, sexy schoolgirl sluts, and vicious grizzly bears, among other things.

Read Full Post »

Hatred is Unamusement Park’s ongoing five-part documentary on the War on Hate, a war which — strangely enough — is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. Last time we considered the strange case of John Derbyshire, whose thoughtful remarks on race differences in intelligence were interpreted as a “Racism 101” lecture delivered by a “white supremacist,” illustrating the stupidity — as well as the hatred and malice — of the so-called “anti”-racists, who are actually merely anti-white.

We also stuck our heads into the coma ward of race denialism to check for signs of brain activity in one or two patients. Alas, none were detected.

Fun times were had by all. Today, though… today is going to get ugly. Today, we’re hunting big game. Today, we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Today… another animal metaphor.

Today, we gird our loins for battle, because our loins is the first place that our next target is going to aim for. Today, our fearless documentary crew covers the most vicious, brutal, and ultimately pointless battlefield in the War on Hate.

It's a metaphorical Vietnam, with slightly less drug use. (All due respect to our veterans.)

Today… goddamn it, I’m so excited, I can’t even say it!

FEMINISM

Today we’re talking about girls. Don’t get too excited. For once it’s not gratuitous hot French girls.

"You... you don't want me anymore? I am so sad." :(

Of course we still want you, gratuitous hot French girl. In fact, we’ll desperately need a dose of your European femininity and general sexiness when we’re done here, because today we’re talking about feminist girls.

Since this my very first post wholly devoted to the dreadful subject, I’m going to treat it like spaghetti: throw a bunch of angry sex-conscious women at a wall and see if they stick. No, that’s not quite right. Let’s just say I’m going to strip down my rhetoric, whip out my toolbox of reactionary politics, and shoot my hateful ideas right in their faces.

There’s got to be a better metaphor for that…

Fuck tha Police (not literally)

Our doomed expedition begins at a curious post by feminist blogger iamcharli, entitled “FYI: My Clothes are Not an Invitation to Rape Me” (February 20 2011).

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.”

Indeed he did. A law enforcement officer, whose job it is to protect women from being raped (among other things), pointed out that women may be able to avoid this by not dressing in a manner specifically designed to arouse men. After all, rape is about sex. It’s about a woman (usually) who doesn’t want sex, from a man (usually) who does and is sufficiently motivated to get it anyway; in other words, whose desire for sex with that woman is greater than his fear of injury or prison, and greater than whatever respect for her wishes he might have. So-called slutty dress does not reduce the man’s fears, but it does increase his desire, and very likely reduces his respect as well.

Not saying it should. Just saying it might.

I wonder if I have any images on my hard drive that could illustrate my point…

"I'm not increasing your arousal, am I? I am? Oh NO!" (pouts)

Why, then, are students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School “demanding an apology and explanation from the Toronto Police Service”, according to the article in the Excalibur? Why are feminists now marching in the streets in a ridiculous protest they’re calling the Toronto SlutWalk?

“I’m appalled by the comment that the police officer has made saying that women should avoid dressing like sluts, and I think it goes to show the inherent misogyny and lack of education,” said Selvasivam, York Federation of Students (YFS) executive.

“I think the officer should be very seriously reprimanded for the comment.”

Misogyny? The word means “the hatred of women by men.” The officer was trying to help women avoid sexual assault. That was his whole reason for being at the campus safety information session. He even knew the risk — in our feminist-loving, hate-hating society — of giving out too much useful information: “I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this,” he said, right before he said it anyway. (Well played, sir.) Who could accuse this man of hating women? Who could be that irrational?

Feminists, that’s who.

As for the officer’s lack of education, he may not have a degree from the Osgoode Hall Law School, but I’m sure he’s familiar with the reality of rape in the city of Toronto. The police aren’t taking these complaints against one of their own seriously, are they?

Toronto police spokesperson Constable Wendy Drummond confirmed the incident has been brought to the attention of senior officials and is currently under investigation.

“[This is] definitely something that we take very seriously. This matter […] has been brought to the attention of our professional standards unit and is something we will be looking into,” she said. … “We are of the position that if these comments were made, it is definitely something that we will [act on],” she added.

Oh.

That slut deserved to get eaten by bears

Do not be alarmed! He is only here to illustrate a point. Not to rape anybody.

Ronda Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program, was the information session attendee who contacted the police about the remark, asking for a written apology and an explanation. Perhaps she can explain why.

Bessner argued that such comments make it difficult for victims dealing with sexual assault because they make them feel uncomfortable going to the police for help.

“I think the problem with the constable’s conduct was that he was blaming the victim,” she said.

Blaming the victim? Curious. I suppose if he had told them they can avoid being eaten by bears if they stay out of forests, he would be blaming the victims of bear attacks.

There is a crucial difference between acknowledging a cause and blaming the victim. The officer was acknowledging a cause: women whose outfits are designed to turn men on, are at a higher risk of attracting a rapist; thus their choice of outfit is a partial cause of their rape. If he had wanted to blame some victims, he would have said something like this.

I’m supposed to tell you about how not to get raped or some shit, but I’m not gonna do that. You know why? ‘Cause if you get raped, it’s your own goddamn fault! You were asking for it, with your slutty clothes and your lip gloss and your hair all done up! You wanted it!

[stunned silence]

You all deserve to get raped!

"Slut! SLUT! Feel the wrath of my police-stick, slut!"

iamcharli elaborates on the horrors of victim blaming. “Dear Mr. Officer,” she writes, probably facetiously,

I don’t care if I’m wearing the sluttiest outfit or a skimpy top or if I’m totally naked. [Hot.] What I choose to wear does NOT, by ANY means, give anyone the right to sexually assault me. My clothing or how I act or what I’ve had to drink, doesn’t excuse a man from sexually assaulting me. My slutty outfit is NOT an open invitation for a man to rape me.

Curiouser and curiouser. I searched the article in vain for the part where the officer says “if you wear slutty clothes, you waive your legal right not to be raped.” I thought he was saying, “if you wear slutty clothes, you are more likely to be raped (because of how rapists choose their victims, in my experience as a police officer), and I might not be around to protect you, and all the legal rights in the world aren’t going to mean jack shit if he really, really wants to have sex with you.” Or words to that effect.

I should do one of these campus safety information sessions! I’m so good at informing women.

Consider a naked college girl

At this juncture, I pictured an attractive female college student walking around downtown Toronto naked. I did this for strictly scientific purposes, of course. I imagined her drinking fifteen Cosmos, then walking home alone. Now, I fully agree that her clothing (or lack thereof), how she acts, and what she drinks, don’t excuse any man from sexually assaulting her. Her hypothetical assailant is 100% responsible, legally and morally and ethically and theologically and whatever other ways you can be responsible, for his own actions. And she certainly didn’t send out invitations, open or otherwise, asking for interested rapists to ambush her as she stumbles her way home through various dark alleys and unlit parks.

Nevertheless, I can think of at least three things she did in this scenario that almost certainly increased her chances of being assaulted. I am not blaming the hypothetical naked drunk victim; I am simply acknowledging causes. She had three choices to make, and every time, she chose the one more likely to lead to her assault.

Of course — I think this goes without saying — anyone who assaults her should be punished exactly as if she had worn a snowsuit, drank nothing but vitamin water, and driven home in a tank with Batman riding shotgun and the 82nd Airborne Division as escort. Still, if she had made those choices, it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

"Let's bring some democracy to these rapists — in the form of flaming-hot death from above." (Again, all due respect...)

Plus, she’d be going home with Batman. That’s got to count for something, right?

Rape: What’s it all about?

Bessner goes on.

“He’s also not making victims feel safe to go to the police. It’s quite astounding that in 2011 that you hear comments like that from a professional.”

Bessner stressed the importance of officers having proper knowledge about sexual assault cases.

“I think it’s really important that the police […] receive appropriate training on sexual assault, so that statements like this are never made and that they understand the dynamics of sexual assault.”

How low does your opinion of women have to be, that you think a police officer recommending modest clothing will scare them away from reporting rape to the police? I thought we were talking about law school students, not children. And the officer seems to understand the real “dynamics of sexual assault” quite well. He just doesn’t buy into the feminist slogans about rape and power.

iamcharli spells it out for us.

Someone needs to take the time to educate this cop about the facts and reasons behind rape. Rape is violent. Rape is not about sex it’s about control and power.

There it is: rape is not about sex, it’s about control and power. Hardly a novel concept: in 1993, the United Nations declared that “rape is an abuse of power and control in which the rapist seeks to humiliate, shame, embarrass, degrade, and terrify the victim.” Fucking an otherwise unobtainable woman? Never even occurred to him, officer! He was too busy with the terrifying and shaming and all that other stuff.

The power theory of rape originated in gender feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book, Against Our Will, in which she wrote that “[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (emphasis in original). Well, that doesn’t sound crazy at all!

Of all the ludicrous left-wing postmodern blank-slate myths, this one is certainly the most dangerous for women, so it should be the first target of attack by feminists, not one of their core beliefs. Steven Pinker demolishes it, and many other myths about sex and gender, in Chapter 18 of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Think about it. [Oh, if only they would!] First obvious fact: Men often want to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them. They use every tactic that one human being uses to affect the behavior of another: wooing, seducing, flattering, deceiving, sulking, and paying. Second obvious fact: Some men use violence to get what they want, indifferent to the suffering they cause. …

A rapist always risks injury at the hands of the woman defending herself. In a traditional society, he risks torture, mutilation, and death at the hands of her relatives. In a modern society, he risks a long prison term. [Score one for traditional society.] Are rapists really assuming these risks as an altruistic sacrifice to benefit the billions of strangers that make up the male gender? … If [encouraging rape to consciously keep women down] were men’s tactic, why would they have made rape a crime in the first place?

He goes on — it wouldn’t be necessary in a sane world, of course, but Pinker knows we don’t live in one — to prove that rape is not, in fact, about power or control. It really is about sex. For one thing,

date rape is a particularly problematic case for the not-sex theory. Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you." Makes sense to me.

It’s difficult not to type out the whole damn chapter and list the many sources it cites, but that would make my own half-baked ideas unnecessary, and we can’t have that. Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and not just for feminists.

When I’m sexually aroused, I become an uncontrollable werewolf

Of all iamcharli’s baffling remarks, this is perhaps the most baffling of all. The bafflingest, if you will.

Rape is not about what I decide to wear. I’m not sure when we all starting thinking that if a man is sexually aroused he becomes this uncontrollable monster and can’t stop himself. Men are not animals. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard.

Let me spell it out for the feminist who couldn’t be bothered to think rationally about an issue which is hugely important to women. Arousal, fear, respect for women, and all the other things men feel, are not goddamn light switches. Nobody is claiming your slutty clothes are going to switch on his arousal, switch off his fear of injury or prison, and switch off his respect for you, making him “this uncontrollable monster.” They are going to increase his arousal, very likely decrease his respect, and do nothing to his fear of injury or prison — unless, of course, your slutty outfit features a hunting knife and barbed wire accessories, which is not a bad idea at all.

Not likely to be a victim of anything, anywhere, at any time.

Go ahead, hold men to any standard you want. The ancient subroutines in their reptilian hindbrains will whir and spin regardless, and if they hit the right — or rather wrong — combination of hormones and neurotransmitters and… whatever, they are going to attempt to assault you. Yes, I know, this means we don’t have free will. Live with it.

Instead of saying stupid shit like “he’s blaming the victim” and “rape is about power” and “what I choose to wear does not give you the right to sexually assault me,” and marching around town proclaiming how proud you are to be a slut and how you would never give up dressing slutty even if it means making yourself a target for rapists, instead of that, why don’t you try to understand the chain of events that leads to a sexual assault — a chain of events that depends very much on the victim’s appearance and behavior; a chain of events which the police officer whose life you’re destroying is quite familiar with. Then ask yourself how you can avoid it.

This image is not strictly relevant, but can I just say how pleased I am to be talking about this instead of black people?

Manning up

Oh, she’s not done yet. Darn. That would have been a good place to stop.

How can we be ok with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as, women can help prevent their own sexual assault if they cover up more?

Sexist and insulting — good grief. These words, like misogyny, have lost all meaning. Let’s try her reasoning with other crimes and other designated victim groups.

  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as ‘women can help prevent the theft of their own property if they lock up the house when they leave more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as homophobic and insulting as ‘gay men can help prevent their getting AIDS if they wrap up their dicks more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as racist and insulting as ‘black men can help prevent their own murder if they don’t deal crack cocaine in the ghetto… more’?”

Robbers, rapists, rival crack dealers, and retroviruses: deep down, they’re all just manifestations of a biological imperative, acted out by soulless molecules.

This needs to stop. More men need to man up and be part of the fight to end sexual violence.

Well, I tried. Somehow I don’t think this is what she had in mind.

And now it’s time for me to bid you adieu.

"I noticed you are speaking French. Does zis mean you have forgiven me?" :)

Appendix: Rape statistics

“1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime,” iamcharli declares. Not this shit again, I silently groan.

There is a great deal of debate about rape statistics. As a rule, anytime someone says “one in three,” “one in five,” or (especially) “one in four,” they’re full of shit. There is no rape epidemic of these proportions. If there were, it would be a national emergency — real apocalyptic martial-law stuff. Those figures do not agree with reality.

I have no desire to discuss rape statistics; it is enough for my thesis that rape of women by men happen, and that it involve sex. Therefore I will merely point out that Heather Mac Donald addresses the myth of campus rape in her appropriately titled article “The Campus Rape Myth.”

Adieu!

Read Full Post »

I know, I know. You’re bored with Unamusement Park. Why, you are wondering, do I seek out these random internet nobodies—these anti-white bigots pretending to be anti-racists, these race denialists living in their color-blind fantasy world, these gun control nuts and their suicidal cult, and all the other radical scum—and call them out on their bullshit? It’s not like they’re going to give me a good debate. Or, indeed, any debate.

Well, this is why: I think (or hope) that somewhere out there are people—good people, the kind of people who would never visit a nasty blog like this—who believe all that bullshit about diversity and multiculturalism and racial discrimination and white privilege (and patriarchy, for that matter), or desperately want to believe it—

—but not because they know some reason why it’s all true. Rather, just because they’ve always been told that it’s right and good and liberal to believe those things, so if you refuse to believe, if you question, if you allow yourself to doubt, then you are wrong and bad and racist and maybe even conservative.

But maybe they’re getting fed up with it. Maybe they don’t think “racist” is a fair way to describe every single person who disagrees with Obama (or any other black person ever). Maybe they don’t see how discrimination in favor of blacks is the right answer to some centuries-old discrimination against blacks—and hey, how exactly are slavery and lynchings still making black people today commit so much crime, and score so poorly on IQ tests, and do so much drugs, and so often refuse to raise their kids? And why aren’t the Jews and Japanese suffering from their recent experiences with discrimination? Maybe they ask those questions too. And maybe they’re tired of the racial bait-and-switch, where “diversity” means we’re all the same deep down, and why can’t we all just get along? one minute; and the next minute it means affirmative action and racial quotas because blacks can’t compete, and chopping up electoral districts for the express purpose of electing more blacks, even if they’re incompetent, corrupt, racist, or criminal, and we’re not allowed to talk about black crime and violence and drug abuse and illegitimacy and STDs and raw racial hatred against all whites.

Maybe they just need someone to tell them that

Maybe that would be enough to point them in the right direction. Well, I figure if I wander around enough and pick enough fights, eventually one of these people—if they even exist—is going to see me writing these terrible, offensive things I write. And then . . .

Man, I don’t know. I changed my mind; it’s all pointless. Everything is pointless.

Fuck it.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: